Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 207 posts

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#111

Post by shevy-java »

Gingras is correct - Springer here tries to censor. I believe the only way to respond to this is by removing Springer completely. Science can not survive when private companies such as Springer begin to censor science, in particular old science.

> Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95.

And this is also outrageous. Not only do they censor but they charge people for that. I believe states need to build up a basic scientific work, in particular for older papers. It can not be that private entities control access to information here.

> Scarlata suspects Springer Nature’s internal policing software removed the paper

That's even worse. So an internal tool decides what to censor. Imagine if all access to old articles were controlled by private greedy companies that run auto-tools, AI, to censor stuff. We need to retaliate here in a way to ensure open access to science perpetually.

> Representatives from Springer Nature declined to comment, beyond saying that“detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.”

Max is dead, so this is a cop out. But even aside from this, it is incorrect.

Springer has a responsibility to everyone else here. If they censor something they abused our trust. Such articles should not be held in private hands. The whole idea of taxpayers paying for something and then Springer, Elsevier etc.. siphoning that money by their paywall, is outrageous. Now that they also censor information, it is time to take all their privileges completely away.

Either way the Streisand effect will now kick in. Springer has become famous for trying to cancel Planck. That injustice can not stand, no matter if automatic tools used it or not (which also shows that these tools are buggy - shame on Springer for employing buggy tools leading to vile censorship methods).

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#112

Post by shevy-java »

0xAstro wrote: post #110

> Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95. If someone else did this, it would'v…

Agreed. The simplest explanation, though, is probably that they used a low quality software tool here. Shame on those software developers who have written it in the first place - they also supported censorship here.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#113

Post by computerdork »

fhdkweig wrote: post #44
tcp_handshaker wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the Springer empty PDF paper for $39.95, has zero errors, and zero plagiarism, so it is above the bar of their other paywalled proceedings papers.

Even emptiness can be plagiarized. See Cage's 4'33" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3#Plagiari...

interesting connection to Cage. Maybe Springer Nature also sees the empty pdf as a form of art? :)

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#114

Post by 12_throw_away »

morelandjs wrote: post #43
stncls wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh even if your org has a subscription, the fees are insane. You just don't see them. Things are slowly changing but I can't wait for this parasitic business model to collapse for good.

I published in Nature Physics and the copy-editing process was quite embarrassing, to the point where we had to repeatedly nag them to stop them from making the manuscript presentation worse. To be clear, I’m not talking about subjective style issues, I mean conforming to their own spec and avoiding careless bugs. All remaining work fell on the backs of the physics referees. I’m not sure what value Springer provided…

Right? A lot of journals make a big deal about submitting your manuscript in the proper format (sometimes even LaTeX if you're lucky) and then you get the galley proofs back and half the equations and citations now have typos in them.

The entire publishing process often feels like a chain of "you had ONE job"-type errors from the journals (presumably because they're wildly underpaying and overworking the people whose one job these things should have been).

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#115

Post by TheRealPomax »

ashenke wrote: post #4

> Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95. The system is broken

You forgot the "still" in that sentence.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#116

Post by poizan42 »

boscillator wrote: post #20

> detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors. Good luck sharing that information with Max Planck. It's amazing how robotically humans can act sometimes. I suppose this could be an AI or automated response, but it's just as likely it's someone following the letter of the law without using any critical thought.

I really wish they would have asked the representative to confirm that they can only share detailed information with the skeletal remains of an author who died 78 years ago. Not that I think it would make any difference, but it would force the representative to acknowledge the absurdity of the situation.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#117

Post by leephillips »

vitally3643 wrote: post #29
jrumbut wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's most bothersome is there is work for them to do. How about assigning a real copy editor with subject matter expertise? How about publishing open source libraries that automatically validate and output visualizations for their formats? How about hosting multimedia supplements? It would not be difficult at all to earn the money they charge. There is so much room for creativity and innovation and adding value in…

That sounds an awful lot like "costs" which seriously compromises the "free profit" model. Why pay money to make a better product when you can pay zero money for a worse product and no change in subscriptions? What are your customers gonna do, go get the paper somewhere else?

Well, yes. There are several ways to get papers:

https://lee-phillips.org/articleAccess/

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#118

Post by Sweepi »

> In November 1940, philosopher Aloys Müller criticized Planck’s views in a Naturwissenschaften piece titled “Naturwissenschaft und reale Außenwelt” (“Natural Science and the Real External World”). A month later, Planck responded in print—and used the exact same title. This, Gingras and Khelfaoui suspect, caused Springer Nature’s copyright bot to retract the paper as plagiarism decades later, even though the contents of the two essays differ markedly.

> The debate over the Copenhagen interpretation remains active today, which explains why Gingras and Khelfaoui find the retractions so troubling: A key scientist’s views on an important controversy have been memory holed.

> Both Scarlata and Gingras are concerned that papers by less prominent scientists have disappeared as well without anyone realizing. At a minimum, Gingras wants Planck’s papers restored. “Whoever did it, I don’t care,” he says, “just put them [back] in the database. Intellectually, it’s not acceptable.”

Thanks, copyright bots.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#119

Post by dcrazy »

dmbche wrote: post #86
dcrazy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One researcher was at UQAM, the other was at UQTR. Are both not considered part of UQ?

No, both are separate universities, although some universities also have satelite campuses (UDeM (montreal) has multiple). Edit0: Although UQ is a group of 10 universities that are public, they are not a single entity.

That sounds like the UC or SUNY systems. UCSB, UCLA, etc are all separate institutions with separate missions, but it’s totally normal to say “UC Berkeley” or “UC Santa Cruz.”

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#120

Post by dreamcompiler »

This is what invariably happens when you give bots control of important day-to-day business operations: The bot makes some horrendous mistake and then there's no human being around who has the authority, the access, and the knowledge to both revert the bot's decision and make sure that the bot doesn't just replay the error at a later date.
Post reply on HN